Spyder Hole and Benchmade = I'm confused

[DWM]

First off all I want to say that I usually never post threads like this, as I do not wish to step on anyones toes and generally don't want to get flamed.
However, I've been reading a lot about this issue on more than one forum and always come to the same conclusion.

Take a step back... Breathe a couple of deep breaths...
Now, with an open mind hear this.

The spyder Hole is a CIRCLE!!! No engineering and/or no vast amount of time or money were put into the "invention" of the Spyder Hole, since I'm pretty sure Spyderco did NOT invent the circle (correct me if I'm wrong, Please)

There are numerous ways of opening a knife. Many good, some not so much. Putting a hole in the blade to open it was a good idea, but saying that no other company can put a circle in the blade just because another had it first just seems petty and silly to me. :jerkit:

I love Spyderco knives. I actually like them a lot better than Benchmades.
But I simply cannot get myself to join the "IN" crowd and start dogging Benchmade because they put a (and I repeat on purpose) CIRCLE instead of a oval or teardrop or whatever in the blade.

Rant over. I just had to get this out.
Please, please feel free to add some insight to this issue that I might have missed, but so far this is all I can say about it!

And don't flame too hard please, I'm actually a very pleasant and peaceful person :thumbup:

 

[Wunderbar]

Some of the the complaints about Benchmade using the round hole might be coming from newer knife buffs. I got into folders around 1996 and back then Benchmade was using the round hole. A few years later they changed to the oval hole. I've heard many rumors about BM licensing the hole idea from Spyderco but I really don't know the facts on that. I would suggest that those who wonder should post the hole question in the Spyderco forum addressed to Sal. I like both Spyderco and Benchmade and I'll soon be getting the new Vex with the round hole to go with my Mini Advanced Folding Combat Knives. The 812 and the 814.

 

[nelsonmc]

This has already been discussed at least 2 times here, plus on the Spyderco.com and Benchmade.com forums. No reason to bring it up in a new thread.

 

[Dog of War]

All the interest and concern over this has puzzled me, too. I don't know how large either Spyderco or Benchmade is in terms of annual sales, earnings, # employees, etc., but both seem substantial enough that it seems like it's really a matter between two companies, and not our concern as consumers.

Why people jumped to the conclusion that Benchmade was infringing on Spyderco's trademark, I don't know. I don't see how anyone could believe Benchmade thought it could pull a fast one without Spyderco knowing about it almost the instant product hit the market. And I can't imagine the economics of it would make it worthwhile for Benchmade to risk litigation anyway.

 

[HoB]

The spyder Hole is a CIRCLE!!! No engineering and/or no vast amount of time or money were put into the "invention" of the Spyder Hole, since I'm pretty sure Spyderco did NOT invent the circle (correct me if I'm wrong, Please)

Really no flame at all, nor am I willing to take a stance till we know for sure even though I take the fact that Spyderco still hasn't spoken up as a pretty strong indication that all is not well.

But....your argument is flawed, I am pretty sure that Mercedes did not invent stars, not even one with 3 points and I am absolutely positive that no vast amount of time or money were put into the "invention" of the 3 pointed star which is recognized all over the world as the Mercedes trademark.....

Care to take a guess what would happen if Toyota decided to put a 3 pointed star onto the hood of a Lexus?

Spyderco has been working very hard to have the circular opening hole recognized all over the world as the Spyderco trademark and I would say they were pretty successful, everybody who knows something about knives recognizes a knife with a round opening hole as a Spyderco.

DOW: The reason is simply that Sal has stated multiple times on this very forum that Spyderco will not licence the hole to direct competitors anymore (on a side note: apparently this decision was made because of the first generation of the AFCK). Secondly, BM DID pull a fast one not to long ago with the Skirmish, remember?

 

[enkidu]

One of the oldest trademarks in existence is Bass ale's Red Triangle Here's a page with some info and a picture of the Bass trademark, which is about as simple a trademark as you can get. I don't think it is much of a jump from triangle to circle at all.

 

[DWM]

This has already been discussed at least 2 times here, plus on the Spyderco.com and Benchmade.com forums. No reason to bring it up in a new thread.

Get off your high horse please.




Now, to HoB and enkidu: I appreciate your answers and have this as a reply.

The Mercedes start is not a design incorporated into the car that has no meaning. It is in fact not a trademark design, it is THE trademark design they use as their emblem. The three points on that star (two pointed down and one pointed up) symbolize their influence in automotive engineering, marine engineering (the 2 bottom ones) and avionics (you guessed it, the top one)

As for the Bass symbol. Again it is THE logo they use to label their product, so it is slightly different.
Spyderco's trademark symbol is not a hole, it is a (go figure) spider.

However... I see both of your points and actually tend to want to agree with them. :thumbup:
I just argued against them because, like most people, I hate to be wrong lol

You do see my point tho?

 

[robertmegar]

Spyderco's trademark symbol is not a hole, it is a (go figure) spider.

However... I see both of your points and actually tend to want to agree with them. :thumbup:
I just argued against them because, like most people, I hate to be wrong lol

You do see my point tho?

Actually the spyderhole is trademarked as well, as mentioned on the previous threads ...

 

[DWM]

Actually the spyderhole is trademarked as well, as mentioned on the previous threads ...

you obviously do not get my point.

 

[robertmegar]

The spyder Hole is a CIRCLE!!! No engineering and/or no vast amount of time or money were put into the "invention" of the Spyder Hole, since I'm pretty sure Spyderco did NOT invent the circle (correct me if I'm wrong, Please)

Oh yes I get it...... you are VERY uninformed about the different between a patent (for inventions) and a trademark AND it is not a circle... it is a round hole.

 

[DWM]

AND it is not a circle... it is a round hole.

I'm glad you know the difference. :jerkit:


AND you don't get the point.

Like I said I can see Spyderco's side of things now.

My point however is, that it's silly (to me at least) to trademark something like a round hole for something like a way to open a knife. It makes no sense to me and actually does nothing more than create problems like these!
Let Benchmade use the friggin hole. Who cares?! People that know knives will think of Spyderco, and every time one looks at, or hears something that puts your company or your product in their head it's advertisement. And this ones free.


P.s.
It is an opinion and I felt like discussing it on this forum that I like to visit. If everyone would think like mister nelsonmc for example, more than half of the threads in this forum would not exist and people wouldn't be as active here.

Another one of my opinions while I'm at it... If you don't have anything constructive to reply... don't. robertmegar

NOW... lets all be friends again (after your reply of course Robert ^^).
After all, we are here because we all share at least one thing, and you know what that is! So no need to fight :thumbup:

 

[TorzJohnson]

thought better of it

 

[hardheart]

Have you read through the other thread, DWM? Digitalrebeltf is a patent attorney and gave some good information about it. It's even been echoed in this thread-a trademark opening hole, which is a functional device. The difference between a patent, for an invention, and a trademark.

Spyderco protected their opening hole under a patent for a depression in a blade used for one handed opening, and now they protect that same functional design with a trademark that makes no mention of functionality. But on their website, the description of the trademark makes mention of how the shape, size and placement of the hole were decided on for ease of use in opening, a function not accomlished by any other component of the knife design. To some of us, this seems wrong and could probably be invalidated.

 

[ras]

. . . Spyderco has been working very hard to have the circular opening hole recognized all over the world as the Spyderco trademark and I would say they were pretty successful, everybody who knows something about knives recognizes a knife with a round opening hole as a Spyderco.
. . .

So why did they allow any other knifemakers to license the round opening hole for use as an opening device on other than Spyderco folding knives? All that did (and does) is increase the number of non-Spyderco knives with round holes in the market. The act of licensing runs contrary to Spyderco working very hard to have the circular opening hole recognized all over the world as a Spyderco trademark.

 

[huugh]

The spyder Hole is a CIRCLE!!!

This is responsibility of patent office to decide wheter the thing is innovative/not used before or not, so that it can be patented/trademarked.
Obviously if you (or basically any company) don't agree you can go to litigation with patent office and call for nullification.

If you check IT branch there such things happened (and happens) many times.

Till nullification law-respecting companies and persons have to respect current condition.



Anyway I personally don't see such a upheaval about Vex, as it is pretty expensive for what it offers. I personally think Byrds are much better.

 

[DWM]

This is responsibility of patent office to decide wheter the thing is innovative/not used before or not, so that it can be patented/trademarked.
Obviously if you (or basically any company) don't agree you can go to litigation with patent office and call for nullification.

If you check IT branch there such things happened (and happens) many times.

Till nullification law-respecting companies and persons have to respect current condition.



Anyway I personally don't see such a upheaval about Vex, as it is pretty expensive for what it offers. I personally think Byrds are much better.

I agree with you. There are rules, and they need to be followed, and that pretty much ends the discussion anyways.
And like you said, the Vex just doesn't seem worth it. I don't even think it looks good. Funny enough, part of the reason I dislike it, is that I don't think the round hole even fits the design of the blade.

 

[the_mac]

Now, if you think of mercedes or Bass, they only have one mentioned trademark in this thread. But think of coca-cola. The bottle shape is distinctive, the sweeping shape under the letters in the company name is also distinctive, and they're both trademarked. It could be argued that the shape of the bottle is a functional advantage (a pinched waist enhancing grip), but that's irrelevant. It's the fact that it's a shape that's universally recognized as COKE that's important.

A round hole in the blade is universally recognized as SPYDERCO. An oval hole, a square hole, rectangular, teardrop, any other shape will still work to open the knife, so why use a shape that's strongly associated with another company.

Don't you think that Coke would be upset if pepsi started bottling in a similar shape to the trademarked coke shape? Even though pepsi could say "it makes the bottle easier to grip!!!" or "but you already have the sweeping shape as your trademark, you don't need the bottle too!" it's still unethical.

 

[HoB]

The Mercedes start is not a design incorporated into the car that has no meaning. It is in fact not a trademark design, it is THE trademark design they use as their emblem. The three points on that star (two pointed down and one pointed up) symbolize their influence in automotive engineering, marine engineering (the 2 bottom ones) and avionics (you guessed it, the top one)

Sorry DWM, that is nonsense (still no flaming, but I happen to know better ). That is an interpretation that came after the fact. The Mercedes star is far older than avionics. Remember, not only is Mercedes the oldest car company, but they (Benz and Daimler) actually invented the automobile, and the company was named after the daughter of one of the two inventors who's name was Mercedes. The Wright bothers had barely made their first flight when Mercedes was using already their three-pointed star. As a matter of fact Mercedes first trademarked TWO different designs because they couldn't decide which one they would use. One was a four-pointed star that has an uncanny resemblence with the Lincoln trademark. The reason why Lincoln and Mercedes never got into each others hair about it, is the fact that a trademark must be actively used in order to be enforeable. Mercedes never used the four-pointed star and hence lost their rights to it. A trademark works very differently than a patent. But who says that a trademark needs to have a meaning? The only meaning it has to have is that a customer comes to identify a company or product with a certain symbol. To stick with cars: BMW has for example also two tradmarks: the actual BMW shield and the characteristic "kidney" shaped air intake (grill).

No ras, it doesn't. The fact that they licence the hole, they acknowledge the fact that this is a valid trademark of Spyderco. It is actually cause strengthening in many ways. The money of the licencing is secondary, as a custom maker you can licence the hole for a wopping $50 minium or $1 per knife......Spyderco is obviously not making money with it. However, according to Sal, lack of acknowledgement of the trademark holder was precisely the reason why Spyderco decided against licencing it to direct competitors.

I venture to guess, not knowing what is really going on between BM and Spyderco, if BM had put into the description of the Vex a line like: "New Vex, featuring the Spyderco opening hole,..." there would be no outcry an Spyderco would probably let BM have the hole for free. This is all about acknowledgement.

When Spyderco licenced the wave, they did advertice the Endura and Delica as "featuring the Emerson-wave"....And there was no outcry, not from Emerson nor from Emerson fans. Similarly, Spyderco also makes knives with the Walker liner lock and the Reeve style integral lock....and this is precisely how they are advertised.

But also important, I think, is to realize that Sal and DesAsis go way back, so before I take a stance I want to hear from Sal what is going on. I interpret the silence that they are currently trying to settle this matter. I disagree with those that say that Spyderco doesn't need to inform us. If this hole in the Vex is legit, Spyderco has an interest as well, that the knife sells. And one word from them and all this fuss would quiet down, and potentially generate a lot of Spyderco customers for BM. That is the reason why I think that all is not well. I am sure, in time we will hear one way or another.

 

[DWM]

Now, if you think of mercedes or Bass, they only have one mentioned trademark in this thread. But think of coca-cola. The bottle shape is distinctive, the sweeping shape under the letters in the company name is also distinctive, and they're both trademarked. It could be argued that the shape of the bottle is a functional advantage (a pinched waist enhancing grip), but that's irrelevant. It's the fact that it's a shape that's universally recognized as COKE that's important.

A round hole in the blade is universally recognized as SPYDERCO. An oval hole, a square hole, rectangular, teardrop, any other shape will still work to open the knife, so why use a shape that's strongly associated with another company.

Don't you think that Coke would be upset if pepsi started bottling in a similar shape to the trademarked coke shape? Even though pepsi could say "it makes the bottle easier to grip!!!" or "but you already have the sweeping shape as your trademark, you don't need the bottle too!" it's still unethical.

Good point!

I was just not putting enough importance on the hole I guess.
I figured it was just a round hole, whats the big deal (trademarked or not).
But you're right, it is important and Spyderco should protect it.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

Guys, c'mon, this has been beat to death.

I don't think there is any dispute that Spyderco had a valid patent on the opening hole and that patent went through its life and expired.

Can the trademark be argued? Probably, but that is the job of the company's lawyers and not any of us. I mentioned in the other thread that the legal system is about applying the law to specific facts patterns. Here, we simply do not have all the facts and we probably will not. Let it be.

Coke bottles- while a bottle itself has a functional purpose the shape of it is usually ornamental and not functional and is perfectly capable of being a trademark. Bottle shape has been litigated before.

So, please, I posted a bunch of info and links before, if anyone is interested they can read that stuff, but go grab your knives and use them. This endless going back and forth serves no purpose.